<<< Already the broader public understands the concept of the virtuality of images. The aura of the film-based photograph is diluted. Those of us who wish to maintain it have to remind the viewer that what they are seeing was made on film. It may seem like a trivial conceit to some but mean everything to others. One time on a photo list I mentioned that on my prints or artist statements I point out the fact that the pictures were un-modified from the negative image (meaning, of course, that I hadn't changed the "factuality" of the original scene.) I got some indignant howls from some.>>> Alan It's one of the things I like least about the digital "revolution" [thinks, an appropriate word considering the rapidity with which it requires you to refresh hardware and software] is not that others do it but that it affected how others perceive what I do. I huge part of what I loved (past tense) about photography was the challenge of getting the shot. But that remains now only a personal interest: digital has made everyone cynical. Veracity - what's that? Who gives a damn. Returning to the thread: Digital will have come of age when it's proponents no longer feel the need to ridicule those who want to look at a print from anything less than 6 feet; when people stop using "digital" as an adjective and just say "photo" again; when the technology really is as cheap and easy - for a mere snapper - as film was. Bob
